Romans 9

Paul began this critical chapter expressing his continual sorrow for the Jews and their choice to not accept Christ's sacrifice as their justification through faith. A critical perspective to have in order to understand Paul while reading this chapter is how Paul preached sermons. In the Book of Acts, Paul (and Peter) had a two step method for presenting their sermons:

• 1st Step: Present the premise (effect) and reason (cause).
• 2nd Step: Support it with scripture, usually three verses.

Here is more Resolution: Paul's 1st Step actually consisted of two sentences - premise and reason.

• The premise was the WHAT.
• The reason was the WHY.
• The scriptural support was the HOW.

This critical chapter in the New Testament was actually presented in this same sermon format.

Remember, at the time Paul wrote this letter he had yet to visit Rome. Also, Romans 1:8 stated that Paul thanked them for their faith that had been proclaimed throughout the world. Paul had heard of their faith, which meant he would have known what they needed to be taught. This chapter was his sermon to the Romans as he would have preached if he was physically there. The key to correctly interpreting this chapter is to make sure your interpretation of Paul's premise was proven by the scriptures Paul referenced. It is fairly easy to come up with a misinterpretation if you only focus on Paul's premise and ignore the foundation Paul presented previously in this letter and ignore the scriptures Paul referenced to support his premise.

Premise: Just because Israel was unable to become Righteous, it did not mean God's Word was wrong or useless. In the previous two chapters, we saw that the individual's flesh/body/brain could cause what was intended for good (God's Word) to result in sin.

Doctrine: Not all Israelites were of Israel. Paul's reason for his premise (that God's Word was not wrong or useless) was that it was the individual's choice to recognize the value within God and to humble himself and accept justification by faith, which determined if he was saved.

Verse 8 was really a restatement of the reason. Paul's reason removed the belief that birth determined Salvation. Being a Jew did not mean you were automatically, and against your will, a child of God. Being a child of God depended on the individual's choice to live after the Spirit instead of the flesh. Those who chose to be children of the flesh were not children of God, even if they were born a Jew. Notice, Paul specifically began this portion of his presentation being in sorrow over the Jews and their decision not to accept Christ. If Paul was expressing Calvinistic doctrine, he would not be in sorrow for the Jews refusal to believe in Christ because it would be "God's Will" and Paul completely supported God's Will. Next, Paul supported this premise and reason with a reference to Genesis 18:10.

The word "election" came from the Greek word eklektos (Strong's #1588) which meant "select; by impl. favorite." These "elect" were children of God. Why? Because they walked after the Spirit. These people were God's "favorite" because they were the best or the "select" just like some products are considered the "select" because they are the best, not because the manufacturer and consumer believes that declaring something "select" makes it the best. Remember, the reason behind the premise was that people were not believers because of their birth, but because of their choice to think well of God (glorify Him as God), humble themselves and accept justification by faith. Paul then gave his second scriptural support with Genesis 25:23.

Verses 10-12 made up a crucial sentence. At this point there were two ways this sentence could be interpreted. The Calvinist would say God declared the younger good and the older bad, and that declaration made Jacob good and Esau bad. Ignoring everything in this book that preceded this sentence would also lead to the conclusion: God did this to make sure we knew that our being good and attaining Salvation had nothing to do with what we chose to do, but with God irresistibly calling Jacob and believers to be good.

On the other hand, the person who interpreted this verse in context with the rest of this book would say God saw the younger would be better at humbling himself and better at having faith than the older, so God declared it ahead of time to emphasize the fact that our Salvation had nothing to do with our works, but instead on our ability to humble ourselves. However, this still would not mean that the younger would end up having faith in God and the older would not have faith in God. It just meant that the older would end up serving the younger because the younger was better before he had the ability to do anything. This also introduced the idea that we are not all created equally. At this point, we don't know if the elder and younger are "good" or "bad," we just know the younger will be better than the elder. The key to understanding which interpretation was closer to Paul's intent depended on the third scripture he referenced.

Paul referenced Malachi 1:2-3. Please read all of Malachi 1 from this commentary to get the full explanation, especially if you do not agree with the following: "hated" meant "loved less." So, this verse also showed that everyone was not created equally: God loved Esau, but He loved Jacob more.

In the Malachi verses immediately after Malachi 1:3, God called His people "Jacob" and the nation of Edom "Esau." The rest of the Malachi passage showed God treated Jacob better than Esau. In Malachi 1, both Jacob and Esau responded to God's different level of love by being disobedient. So, the closest interpretation for the previous verses had nothing to do with being "good." Here is the summary that is written in this commentary for Malachi 1:

Esau was "hated" (loved less) than Jacob. Both responded poorly, which justified God. There was nothing God could have done to cause Esau and Jacob to be righteous and focus on Him because He tried both methods, and both chose to focus on themselves. God's loving response was to punish both of them. All of the calamity that came upon Esau and Israel was in response to how each of them chose to live. Also, both of their responses justified God's decision to turn His focus to people outside of His people: Gentiles.

The passage from Malachi showed that even though God loved Jacob, it did not result in Jacob choosing to be obedient to God. That point blatantly contradicted the Calvinistic interpretation above because God calling Jacob (His people) did not result in the Jews choosing Salvation, which was why God said He would offer Salvation to the Gentiles. The Malachi passage supported the contextual interpretation from above.

Paul referenced the scripture from Malachi to support his point (reason) that being Jewish did not equate to being Righteous as well as God loving Jacob more from birth did not result in all the Jews attaining Salvation. Remember, we are all "children of the promise" and it is up to us to walk by the Spirit in order to be "elect." Paul showed that God stopped having mercy on the Jews and reached out to the Gentiles because He was looking for people who would recognize the value within Him (glorify Him as God) to accept justification by faith. Notice, how this interpretation continued to fit the context of the following verses.

Paul addressed his premise in contrastive fashion. Paul spoke for people who would oppose his premise by stating his opposition's premise: God was unrighteous to stop having mercy on the Jews.

Doctrine: There is no unrighteousness with God. God is always completely Right and always completely Just. Predetermining an individual's Salvation would not be Right nor Just.

Key Point: No matter what rationalization is stated, God predetermining an individual's Salvation would be making God responsible for a person's Salvation and justifying man. God would be to blame for people spending eternity in the lake of fire, which would not be a reason to recognize the value within God. Paul supported his perspective on this second presentation of the premise by referencing Exodus 33:19.

Doctrine: God's mercy is an effect of God being always completely Right. Whomever God has mercy on will be as an effect of it being Right to have mercy on them in that moment. Also Matthew 5:7 stated that those who showed mercy would get mercy. That meant God's mercy was also an effect of God being always completely Just. God's Nature (Right and Just) guides God's mercy. Remember, as Paul focused on the Doctrine of God's mercy, it must fit the context of everything we have read so far.

Doctrine: God is the source of mercy and Salvation. People are responsible for choosing to show mercy and choosing to receive Salvation by faith. Paul continued to support this premise by referencing Exodus 9:16.

Paul used Pharaoh as an example of God ceasing to show mercy. Do not get distracted by the phrasing of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. If you need the full explanation for how God hardened Pharaoh's heart as an effect of Pharaoh's choices, begin reading in this commentary from Exodus 5. Pharaoh's heart being hardened was all in response to Pharaoh's response to what he thought was an injustice. Pharaoh did not think well of God, he did not see value within God. Furthermore, remember in 1 Samuel 6:6, the Philistines warned each other not to be like Pharaoh and instead chose not to harden their hearts. Instead, they recognized God's value and made offerings.

Doctrine: Mercy is the time between the unjust act and the equaling out of Justice. Paul used this verse to support the premise that God stopped showing Pharaoh mercy, God did not allow an indefinite time between Pharaoh's unjust acts and the equaling out of Justice. However, Paul also referenced that God did initially show mercy to Pharaoh for a long enough time that Pharaoh was raised up. Basically, Paul just gave an example where God showed mercy to Pharaoh, even though God knew Pharaoh would not humble himself, so that God could demonstrate His power when He stopped showing mercy. Remember, God can also give you a good influence because He knows it will result in bad because of the sin in your body/flesh/brain in order to make you aware of this sin. Your response to your sin would prove whether you were a believer (valued God) or not (value yourself above God): either confession and repentance or pride and self-justification.

Next, Paul's third presentation of his premise took the form of two philosophical questions from a contrastive perspective: If God could unilaterally make His will happen, why did God find anyone guilty? Paul showed these two statements were inexorably linked: Not being able to withstand God's Will would lead to God not being able to condemn anyone! Paul blatantly showed Calvinism is contradictory regardless of any rationalization Calvinists present for God not being unrighteous when He condemned people against their will. As Paul had done with the first two presentations of his premise, he supported this third presentation of his premise by referencing scripture. This time it was Isaiah 29:16.

Paul referenced scripture to make the reader aware that God is the Creator and we are the thing that is created. Some could misinterpret this to support Calvinism: God does whatever He wants and His reasons do not have to make sense. If Paul supported Calvinism or did not believe we could understand the reason, this would have been the end of his explanation. However...

As Paul's fourth presentation of his premise, Paul stated the conclusion we saw earlier: God initially showed mercy to Pharaoh so that God could show His power when He stopped showing His mercy. This tied into the other point Paul made: It was Right and Just for God to initially show mercy even though He knew Pharaoh would never humble himself, it was not wrong for God to continue to show mercy even though He knew Pharaoh would only choose to harden his own heart. God was not showing mercy to Pharaoh for Pharaoh's benefit, as if God thought Pharaoh would actually humble himself. God showed Pharaoh mercy in order to do more miracles for the Israelites. Was it wrong to do that? Paul's answer was "no, God's decision to show mercy, then not to show mercy was Right and Just, there was not a better option than the way God handled Pharaoh."

Summary: So far, Paul has made the point that everyone was perfectly deserving of punishment/destruction in response to choices they made, to not recognize the value within God and actively walk according to the flesh. For anyone at this point to conclude that our existence was predetermined would contradict everything Paul had written to this point and make God Wrong and Unjust. Verses 22 and 23 showed Paul stated it would be Right and Just for God to show mercy to people He knew were not going to humble themselves in order to show His power when He stopped showing mercy. However, Paul had not concluded this sentence.

Look at verses 22 through 24 again. Paul's point in this sentence was to liken what God did with the Christians to what God did with the Israelites in Egypt. Paul began this chapter stating his sorrow for the Jews not accepting justification by faith. Recall, the Jews continued to reject God during the times of the kings, despite God appealing to Israel through the prophets. Paul stated the same questions that people could ask about Pharaoh could also be asked about the Israelites prior to Jesus' resurrection. Why did God extend mercy to the Jews for so long, when God knew that it would never result in the Jews completely humbling themselves before God? Paul's answer was, "So that God could demonstrate His power and call another people out once He stopped showing mercy to Israel." Like we saw Paul do with the first three presentations of his premise, he supported this premise with scripture.

Paul quoted Hosea 2:23 to support his premise. This scripture proved that God knew His People would never choose to humble themselves and He would have to call out another group of people. The New Testament (Greek) word for "church" was ekklesia which meant "the called out ones."

Paul referenced Isaiah 10:22-23 as the second support: Not all of Israel would be saved; just a remnant. Again, Paul's premise in this chapter was that God knew not all of Israel would choose to humble herself, but that did not stop God from showing mercy and then stop showing mercy.

Paul referenced Isaiah 1:9 as the third support: Not all of Israel would be saved, just a remnant. This verse gave a reason why God stopped showing mercy: if He had continued to show mercy, no one would have chosen to humble themselves. No one would have recognized the value within God. If God had delayed Jesus' birth long enough, there would have been no one who would have believed on Him! Paul had brought his focus back to the Gentiles.

Paul's observation was that the Gentiles ended up being Righteous when they did not begin with the cause of Righteousness, while the Jews who had the cause of Righteousness (the Law) did not end up being Righteous.

Paul's premise: The Jews did not seek God by faith, they sought God by works. Everything Paul wrote up to this point supported this premise. Every premise and example in this chapter supported this premise. The Jews chose to justify themselves in pride rather than humble themselves, recognize the value within God and accept justification by faith. Paul even supported this final premise of this chapter with a scripture.

Paul referenced Isaiah 28:16 to show that God knew the Jews would not humble themselves and believe on Jesus.

Theme of Chapter 9: Paul built on the foundation of the previous chapter which more specifically assured us of our Salvation if we love God and live in the Spirit according to grace. In this critical chapter, Paul presented in sermon form his premise that God was Right and Just to show mercy to the Jews (and Pharaoh) even though He knew they would not humble themselves, glory in (and obey) God, so that He could show His power when He stopped showing mercy. All of God's actions were in response to the choices of the individual, otherwise God would not be always completely Right and always completely Just.